Patterico's Pontifications


Poll: 71 Percent of Americans Believe It Is Inappropriate to Build Mosque Near Ground Zero

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 4:55 pm

Or 72 percent, depending on whether you believe the chart or the story.


Judge: Hooters May Have to Hire Overweight Women

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 4:25 pm

Details at the WSJ Law Blog.

I have never been to a Hooters, but it is my understanding that the idea is that waitresses are supposed to be buxom and beautiful. Or at least female, nonugly — and nonoverweight.

Yet a Michigan judge now says that an overweight waitress can sue for … weight discrimination.

Don’t hate me because I’m not beautiful.

For what it’s worth, it appears that it’s actually not the judge’s fault. Some idiot Michigan lawmaker wrote a provision into an anti-discrimination law that permits such a lawsuit. Who knows if he would have intended to apply the law to a business like Hooters. Hell, he probably never even read the law.

Can’t He Just Finish His Waffle, Er, Shrimp?

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 1:43 pm

Tapper on Twitter:

Reporter shouts question on Iraq to POTUS, who’s ordering at restaurant. POTUS responds: “We’re buying shrimp, guys. Come on.”

Via Hot Air. Where else?

Another Reminder of Why “Intentionalism” Cannot Govern Statutory Interpretation

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 12:54 pm

Because the lawmakers don’t read their own bills:

Judy Matott asked Baucus if he would work to improve Libby’s image, and then asked him and Sebelius, “if either of you read the health care bill before it was passed and if not, that is the most despicable, irresponsible thing.”

Baucus replied that if Libby residents assembled an economic development plan, he would do what he could to help, and he took credit for “essentially” writing the health care bill that passed the Senate.

“I don’t think you want me to waste my time to read every page of the health care bill. You know why? It’s statutory language,” Baucus said. “We hire experts.”


Explain to me again why this guy’s subjective intent should count for anything in interpreting this bill?

Open Thread: Primary Edition

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:24 am

The Maverick is back!

(He’s not a “maverick,” by the way — and he never claimed he was. And his positions never change. Just so we’re clear.)



Shirley Sherrod Declines USDA Job Offer

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 11:29 am

Mysteriously acquitted of racism despite advocating treating whites differently from blacks, she now wants to work on — you guessed it — racial issues:

She said she needs to “take a break” from the events of the past few weeks, but looks forward to “some type of relationship with the department in the future.”

“We need to work on issues (of) discrimination and racism in this country, and I’d certainly like to play my role,” Sherrod added.

That role will, I suppose, include healing comments such as saying Andrew Breitbart wants to take us back to the days of slavery.

Ooh, I know! She could lead a national conversation on race!

Thanks to Hot Air.


Politico Engages in Thuggery Against Conservative Blogger: It’s Boycott Time

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 11:08 pm

The boycott of Politico is back on.

As regular readers will remember, I vowed to boycott Politico almost a year ago, after they issued a cease-and-desist letter to Stephen Gutowski, aka The College Politico.  Politico lawyers claimed that Gutowski was infringing their trademark by using the word “politico” — a commonly used term defined in the dictionary as “politician.”

Some time later, I wrote Gutkowski to ask what had happened with the lawyers.  He told me he thought the episode was behind him:

[In response to my e-mail, Gutkowski] said that [Politico] had never followed up and he assumed that they had silently backed down. He doesn’t consider it an issue any more, and accordingly, neither do I.

Well, things just changed.  The Daily Caller reports that, this week,

Gutowski received another take-down notice [PDF], this time arguing that he’s “squatting” on the domain.

“We have not received any response to our demand that Mr. Gutowski immediately cease all use of any marks or domain names that are confusingly similar to the POLITICO Marks, including all use of the mark THE COLLEGE POLITICO and the domain name ‘,’ and that Mr. Gutowski promptly take all necessary steps to transfer ‘’ domain name to out client,” the letter reads.

The letter also charges that Gutowski’s use of the word “politico” is “actiononable under both the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act,” which prevents consumers from buying up domain names and using them to wring money out of companies or persons who might one day seek to start a website using their name in the URL.

In other words, they’re still threatening to sue.

This cannot stand.

This is a bogus claim with no legal merit.  It’s classic Internet bullying by the Big Guy against the Little Guy — with no basis in law.

We must fight it.

I am on a Politico e-mail list that sends out Politico stories to bloggers.  I am unsubscribing from that list tonight, and explaining why.  I am reinstating my boycott on the site — meaning I will not link Politico stories until this is resolved in a manner favorable to Gutowski. I encourage all like-minded bloggers to do the same.

We’re not submitting to bogus licensing demands by the government, and we’re not giving in to legal thuggery.

We have to take a stand.

Spread the word.

Tim Cavanaugh: L.A. Times Runs Most Biased Top Story Ever

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 4:51 pm

It may be a bit of deliberate hyperbole on Tim’s part, but it is pretty bad:

[I]t’s not Shane Goldmacher’s opinion, just straight news, that the lame-duck governor of California is sending a “gubernatorial ransom note” and “holding the state hostage” in his budget negotiations, thus repeating a “shameful chapter in California’s history” and alienating cooperative Democrats with his “ultimatums.” It is furthermore objectively true that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is doing this not just from an honest desire to fix Sacramento’s chronic budgeting problems but out of personal pique, that he is trying to retrofit a “fiscal system that has bedeviled California — and him — for years.”

Just the facts! That’s how they always operate at our favorite paper.

L.A. Times Delivers Pro-Muslim Spin on Ground Zero Mosque

Filed under: Dog Trainer — Patterico @ 12:07 pm

The L.A. Times today publishes an article by Borzou Daragahi about how Muslims across the world disapprove of opposition to the Ground Zero mosque:

The heated debate across America over construction of the so-called ground zero mosque is reverberating across the globe, with the potential of creating a worldwide black eye for the United States.

Many Muslims abroad are miffed by the stateside debate, largely conducted by non-Muslims, that has grown so loud as to become a topic of discussion on talk shows and newspapers from Bali to Bahrain, from Baghdad to Berlin. The proposed Cordoba House has become a symbol of America’s fraught relations with the world’s 1.5 billion Muslims.

I don’t understand why anyone would discern hostile intentions from the builders.  After all, t’s not like the project’s “moderate” imam Feisal Rauf is happy about the controversy, right?

“The fact we are getting this kind of attention is a sign of success,” Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf reportedly said Sunday with respect to the project, addressing a gathering at the U.S. ambassador’s residence in the Persian Gulf state of Bahrain.

“It is my hope that people will understand more,” Rauf said without elaborating, according to the AP.


While the paper does report that quote in a separate article, portraying it as benign, the quote does not make it into this article.

That wouldn’t be good propaganda.

Amid a flurry of Arab complaints about the U.S. — we need to do something about Israel; we need to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan; etc. — the article does include the perspective of some Muslims that the mosque is a bad idea.  See if you can figure out what aspect of that admission they leave out.

“Building a mosque there will increase hatred between Muslims and non-Muslims in the West,” said Gamal Awad, a professor at Cairo’s Al Azhar University. “It will further connect Islam with a horrible event.”

Al Aznar, eh?  They’re the folks who declared the mosque a Zionist conspiracy — a little tidbit that the L.A. Times doesn’t tell you about.

That wouldn’t be good propaganda.

Are we seriously to believe that Borzou Daragahi, or his special correspondents — Amro Hassan in Cairo, Ranya Kadri in Amman, Jordan, Ramin Mostaghim in Tehran, or Meris Lutz in Beirut — elicited no anti-Semitic comments about the mosque being a Zionist conspiracy?

Or should we conclude, rather, that somewhere along the chain, such comments were deemed “unhelpful” to the agenda of the story?



Forgive Me for Not Caring About What They Think

Filed under: General — Jack Dunphy @ 11:36 pm

[Guest post by Jack Dunphy]

“New York mosque controversy worries Muslims overseas.”

So reads the headline to a story running in Monday’s Los Angeles Times. And the story that accompanies it is, as one would expect, every bit as fatuous as the headline. It is yet another in a long series of attempts by our sophisticated betters in the national media to shame those of us who would prefer not to see a mosque rise in what would have been the shadow of the World Trade Center towers. That those towers were reduced to rubble nine years ago, and that nearly 3,000 Americans met unspeakably cruel deaths that day at the hands of terrorists who committed their barbarism in the name of Islam, well, these are unpleasant memories that live on only in the minds of people so backward and unenlightened that they refuse to allow any figurative thumbs to be jammed into their eyes.

It’s growing ever more tiresome to hear defenders of the Ground Zero Mosque lecture us on blessings of the First Amendment. Yes, they have the right to build it there, and few would argue otherwise. But just as a man has the right to tell his wife that her new hairstyle makes her look like a Pekingese, that her cooking is unfit for man or beast, and that, yes, those pants do indeed make her look fat, the prudent husband keeps such opinions to himself in the interest of harmonious domestic relations. One might also have the right to burn an American flag outside the local VFW post, but one must accept the risk of being labeled a boor for doing so. (And being labeled a boor is probably the best thing that would happen to anyone so unwise as to exercise his rights in such a fashion.)

Americans are the last people on earth who need to demonstrate their tolerance for diversity of religious thought. It’s a shame that the Ground Zero Mosque controversy is causing such worry among Muslims overseas, but until there’s a synagogue in Mecca, I’m not going to lose any sleep about it.

–Jack Dunphy

« Previous PageNext Page »

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2959 secs.